Bruce Bartlett: Revenge of the Reality-Based Community-My life on the Republican right & and how...

[Faryn Balyncd]

quite a read:

Revenge of the Reality-Based Community
My life on the Republican right—and how I saw it all go wrong.

- Bruce Bartlett

"...As I wrote the book ... my utter disdain for Bush grew, as I recalled forgotten screw-ups and researched topics that hadn't crossed my radar screen. I grew to totally despise the man for his stupidity, cockiness, arrogance, ignorance, and general cluelessness. I also lost any respect for conservatives who continued to glorify Bush as the second coming of Ronald Reagan and as a man they would gladly follow to the gates of hell. This was either gross, willful ignorance or total insanity, I thought.

"The final line for me to cross in complete alienation from the right was my recognition that Obama is not a leftist. In fact, he's barely a liberal --- and only because the political spectrum has moved so far to the right that moderate Republicans from the past are now considered hardcore leftists by right-wing standards today. Viewed in historical context, I see Obama as actually being on the center-right."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9750

a little more, from the former economic policy analyst in the Reagan & Bush 41 administrations:

"...After careful research along these lines, I came to the annoying conclusion that Keynes had been 100 percent right in the 1930s. Previously, I had thought the opposite. But facts were facts and there was no denying my conclusion," he writes, concluding that George W. Bush's Great Recession made clear that "We needed Keynesian policies again.

"Annoyingly, I found myself joined at the hip to Paul Krugman, whose analysis was identical to my own. I had previously viewed Krugman as an intellectual enemy and attacked him rather colorfully in an old column that he still remembers.

"For the record, no one has been more correct in his analysis and prescriptions for the economy's problems than Paul Krugman. The blind hatred for him on the right simply pushed me further away from my old allies and comrades."


http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9750

[randome]

1. Wow. Someone willing to think for himself instead of blindly follow someone else's ideology.

I think we will see more of this, though perhaps not as articulately presented.

[Fumesucker]

2. He's going to be very unpopular with certain elements here on DU

"Viewed in historical context, I see Obama as actually being on the center-right."

Here you have a right winger calling Obama "center-right".

[truebrit71]

3. Anyone Democrat thinks that Obama is some sort of left-winger is as delusional...

...as the wingnuts that call him a Marxist..

[Fumesucker]

5. It's peculiar that a lot of those who think Obama is a liberal just loathe anyone to Obama's left

[adieu]

14. anyone who thinks Obama is a liberal

doesn't know what liberal (or conservative) means, and hence, would loathe anyone left of Obama. They're completely clueless.

[Skittles]

55. CORRECT

[PragmaticLiberal]

61. Well, I guess I'm clueless.

Because I actually think President Obama is a liberal.

I just happen to think he's a pragmatist....which isn't necessarily a bad thing.


But with that being said, at times I think Obama let's his "pragmatism" get in the way of his "liberalism".

[Ikonoklast]

9. Look at the votes of Sen. Bernie Sanders, a real, actual Socialist.

Knowing when to implement Pragmatism is knowing the art of the doable.

Yet no one excoriates Bernie for supporting some moderate-to-right solutions.

[sabrina 1]

17. That's because Sanders is very clear on issues that directly affect the American people.

Eg, no one has to wonder where he stands on SS being part of the Deficit discussions. He has been crystal clear on exposing the lie that SS had anything to do with the Deficit.

He calls out lies when he sees them and in doing so has helped educate people who may have fallen for the Right Wing lie that 'SS needs to be cut or we all fall off the Fiscal Cliff'.

Yes, he ended up, despite his support for a PO in the HC Bill, signing it, but only after he bargained for what he wanted for those who elected him. Most of the other Dems simply signed on without fighting for some concessions.

[noiretextatique]

32. +100000

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. The term "historical context" is particularly important.

But those on the left who think of President Obama as a leftist have bought into the right wing belief system.

Obama is to the right of Clinton, who was to the right of Carter, who was to the right of Johnson, who, himself, was a centrist.

The U.S. has never had a screaming leftist President. We tend to elect center left, center, and center right representatives, whether they be in the executive or the Legislative branches.

[Fumesucker]

7. Yeah, but the US has had _two_ screaming rightist presidents, arguably three if you count GHWB

[Vincardog]

21. If we tend to elect all those "center" representatives, why do we end up with such a RW government?

[apnu]

25. I disagreed with many of Bartlett's points, but I found him coming around refreshing.

He's not over to our side fully yet, but he's on the way. He is, more than half way there. Like Arianna Huffington. It took her a while to come around and, even then, she'll never be 100% on our side. But she rejects the modern conservative status quo, as does Bartlett now. He's seen some of the bullshit for what it is, and he's seeing more of the bullshit every day. Good for him.

Bartlett still unclear where the middle is, and Obama certainly isn't "center-right." Obama has always been a moderate on the left. Even if he has 2/3 majority in both houses and all 7 justices on the SCOTUS, PBO is not that far left.

[JDPriestly]

65. Obama at his most liberal is an Eisenhower Democrat,

and those existed back in the 1950s. There were enough of them to elect Eisenhower to the presidency.

[randome]

31. I don't particularly agree with him on that but it's a valid viewpoint.

[TalkingDog]

43. I've always maintained that with Clinton, Democrats took a hard right and stayed there.

Progressives need to find a message that under cuts the rightwing bullshit and push it just as hard, so we can gain back the middle ground.

[bvar22]

63. In the International neighborhood of "Civilized Countries",

Obama can't even be considered "Center-Right".

"Lengthy books could be written on the subject, but let's say here that the prevailing international standards for politicians (for the respectable countries which number at least sixty) include that centrist politicians have to strongly support single payer health care and they have to strongly support a publicly sponsored and publicly regulated retirement pension system and they have to strongly support assistance payments for those who are permanently disabled. This is actually an understatement because in the respectable countries even most of the "right wing" politicians support all of those principles and programs. Although the right wingers never tire of trying to nibble around the edges of those programs, you won't see them advocate big cuts in them that amount to theft of taxpayers who have paid for their benefits in advance.

Meanwhile, when Obama fails to support full scale single payer health care and when he puts Medicaid and Medicare on the chopping block and when he puts the publicly regulated retirement pension system (called Social Security in the States) on the chopping block and when he puts support payments for the permanently disabled (Social Security again) on the chopping block then he is in no way shape or form a centrist. "

[hollysmom]

4. excellent article, thank you for bringing it.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

8. Thanks,

This is a great read..

[freshwest]

10. A great find! Thanks and keep 'em coming! K & R

[Segami]

11. Thank you!

[southernyankeebelle]

12. Well liberals always knew Obama truly was more of a blue dog dem. Not a surprise to

us.

[libdem4life]

20. True. So like good Liberals, we keep our views and relish the time we get a bit of a pendulum swing

My sene is that it is a continuum and on 1-10 scoring, 9-10 being Liberal and 5-6 being Moderate...I'd give Obama a 5 1/2. Better than 4 1/2 or 2 or 3 which is the typical Conservative. I believe it is the polarities of the "extreme" 1-2 vs. 9-10 that cereate the curve of Moderates...similar to a grading curve. Popularity and conformity is the comfort of the Moderate and suggest that the "undecideds" are the truest moderates of all and can be swayed a degree either way, thus suggesting the typical margin of the popular vote around 2-3 points.

I'm not convinced that the relative political conversation has changed that much in the past few decades. Causes, wrongs to be righted, factual issues are cyclical and fluid.

I've also heard the theory of the thirds...featuring equal measures of conservative, moderate and liberal...which makes sense, as well.

[southernyankeebelle]

27. Excellent point. If the right could stay away from the social issues and try to outreach

to minorities and stop talking like dems want free stuff then who knows. But I have a feeling it will be a couple more elections before they learn.

[Fumesucker]

30. A pendulum that swings from hard right to slightly right of center isn't really much of a pendulum

[libdem4life]

35. The Hard Right would state it completely opposite...I have it on good knowledge.

The pendulum may have been an incorrect analogy. More like a grading curve. They had McCarthy we had McGovern. McGovern makes Obama look, at best, like a Centrist. The Tea Party is our Black Panthers/Flower Children of old.

I'll not be surprised to see a shift to the left as the TP is falling off the rabid nutcase cliffs and I think Occupy is the new vehicle of the left. I think they represent the resurrection of the Old Left. Especially Occupy WalMart...I watched that corporate vulture (and its look alikes) take over, propagate, chew up, and spit out our solid economic small business and manufacturing core. Two presidents enabled them...Nixon and Clinton...both somewhat Centrist partisans.

[Fumesucker]

42. The hard right think Obama is a communist, hardly an accurate observation of reality

George McGovern was a highly decorated WWII vet who flew 35 missions over enemy territory in a B24, on 34 of those missions he served as pilot.

Not exactly most people's idea of a flaming lefty.

Ronald Reagan on the other hand never left the USA during the WWII and "served" mostly in Hollywood.

[libdem4life]

44. Back in the day ... 1970-72 ... McGovern was a way far lefty Everyone back then...until we anti-war

types did our lefty thing and friends did not return, or returned disabled, from VietNam...had been in war of one kind or other. One with a non-veteran or military background need not apply. And maybe you are younger, we Anti-War "communists and traitors and infiltrators" were Far Left...merely because we did not support war against innocent people. The FBI lurked. A lot of us weren't "fond-a Jane."

In contrast, the hard core Conservatives were Barry Goldwater. Reagan was reactionary. History retells tales and perceptions. My mother just passed and she remembered WWI.

Peace.

[Kolesar]

13. Bush sold fear and militarism to enhance his "cult of personality"

A nod to BradBlog.com for the excellent article.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. Great excerpts. Thanks for posting! Bookmarked. Recommended without hesitation. nt

[LondonReign2]

16. It takes a big person

to admit that they have been completely, utterly wrong, particularly with something so ingrained as is right-wing thinking.

[Hutzpa]

18. I call this BULSHIT!

Last edited Fri Nov 30, 2012, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

period.

Sell a book, but don't mislead people with your thinking.

Obama is not a liberal...

I know the author would like to see Obama as a center right president which imo is a wishful thinking, unfortunately for them Obama is not what they're trying to profess him to be.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. Obviously you have not read the article that the links lead to. Bartlett is right about

Obviously you have not read the article that the links lead to. Bartlett is right about lots of things. When he (a right wing apostate) and Krugman agree fundamentally on a crucially important and defining issue, then it is worth paying attention.

It is not bullshit to use reality. That is the central thesis of the original post and of Bartlett's thought-provoking article, which you should read. He and Krugman are thinkers. Do you have anything more than hutzpah to spew about the central thesis?: the Republican Party is out of touch with reality and will pay the price until they accept reality.

[Hutzpa]

45. I'm calling bullshit to their or Bartletts' theory

that Obama is more a center right president, I am not buying that BS for a second even if he uses Krugman to profess his inaccurate theory/thesis I'm still not buying it because there is sufficient evidence that shows otherwise.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. When you refer to 'just selling books' (paraphrased) you refer to central thesis which is not Obama.

[Hutzpa]

50. This is what I'm responding to

"The final line for me to cross in complete alienation from the right was my recognition that Obama is not a leftist. In fact, he's barely a liberal ---

Unless I'm mistaken, but didn't that came from the book? Isn't that the reason he is giving why he is crossing over or planning to cross over?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. You are picking on the straw that broke the camel's back, not the Republican load of BS that

You are picking on the straw that broke the camel's back, not the Republican load of BS that is driving thoughtful voters away from the party.

That's the real Bullshit, the Republican bubble and epistemological circle that live in, not some label applied to Obama by some people and not others.

[Hutzpa]

52. We all know republicans believe in their own BS

I just wish the author could have been much more clearer than to sell us their bent up premise of Obama being a center right president as the reason why republicans are losing votes, so therefore he is crossing over. I say bull crap.

[reusrename]

56. I take it that you believe the president to be a true liberal.

What policy has he promoted that gives you that idea?

[sabrina 1]

57. Well Obama is far from being a Liberal. And he doesn't seem to have much time for the Progressive

Wing of the party. How many Progressives has he appointed to important cabinet positions eg? Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy eg. Geithner, Gates, Emannuel, Daley, Monsanto Exec etc etc.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. You seem to be afraid to read the article, perhaps because of where it is located. That is just like

You seem to be afraid to read Bartlett's article, the whole point of the Original Post, perhaps because of where it is located. That would be the same kind of bubble mistake the Republicans make who refuse to read the New York Times.

If you had read the article, you would realize that your wish was answered before you posed it. The author is "much clearer than to sell Obama being center right". Though you may disagree with his label, it is only a label and it is a tiny part of the article, and disproving that point would not disturb his central thesis at all.

If you had read the article, you wouldn't be making the mistake of calling the whole article "BULLSHIT".

You too can be brave enough to read a conservative publication. The article is in the The American Conservative. Here's an excerpt (emphasis added):

Not one person had read it or cared in the slightest what the New York Times had to say about anything. They all viewed it as having as much credibility as Pravda and a similar political philosophy as well. Some were indignant that I would even suspect them of reading a left-wing rag such as the New York Times.

I was flabbergasted. Until that moment I had not realized how closed the right-wing mind had become. Even assuming that my friends’ view of the Times’ philosophy was correct, which it most certainly was not, why would they not want to know what their enemy was thinking? This was my first exposure to what has been called [font color="red"]“epistemic closure”[/font] among conservatives—living in their own bubble where nonsensical ideas circulate with no contradiction.

Don't make the "Republicant" mistake. Read widely from all three or more sides. Yes you can.

[BlueToTheBone]

59. His Sec of Ag is Vilsack

an ex Monsanto, Sec of Interior Salazar who loves oil ...he is center right, but he holds the line for us.

[CJCRANE]

19. The Republicans have ceded reality

to the Democrats.

All they have left is loyalty to their party.

[Dont call me Shirley]

22. We need many many more of these gop turncoats who have seen the light

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. Reality therapy for Tea Partiers and Faux fans:

[JHB]

26. He's getting closer, but still won't admit he's still missing some points:

(link to Bartlett's article rather than commentary on it):
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

If Republicans could only increase their share of the black vote from 10 percent, which it had been since Goldwater, to the 30 percent level that Dwight Eisenhower enjoyed, it would have major electoral ramifications.

The best way to get Republicans to read a book about reaching out for the black vote, I thought, was to detail the Democratic Party’s long history of maltreatment of blacks. After all, the party was based in the South for 100 years after the war, and all of the ugly racism we associate with that region was enacted and enforced by Democratic politicians. I was surprised that such a book didn’t already exist.

I thought knowing the Democratic Party’s pre-1964 history of racism, which is indisputable, would give Republicans a story to tell when they went before black groups to solicit votes. I thought it would also make Republicans more sympathetic to the problems of the black community, many of which are historical in their origins. Analyses by economists and sociologists show that historical racism still holds back African-Americans even though it has diminished radically since the 1960s.

So I wrote Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. Unfortunately, it was published the day Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses. But I still held out hope that Hillary Clinton, who was pandering to the white working class in unsubtle racial terms, would capture the Democratic nomination. The anger among blacks at having the nomination effectively stolen from Obama would make them highly receptive to GOP outreach, I believed. I even met with John McCain’s staff about this.

The problem with his book wasn't that it Obama's win buried it. It's that the premise ignores the most important reason for the shift in black voting:

The Republican party actively recruited the racist wing of the Democratic party, and they've done it for just about Bartlett's entire lifetime. Guys like William F. Buckley supported "states rights" and nostrums about black inferiority even while trying to beat back the Bircher anti-semites for the definition of conservativism. If he could get conservative jews and conservative southerners on board he could have a conservative ascendancy.

This was made explicit by Nixon's "Southern Strategy." Reagan didn't hesitate to play to racists to gain support, he just knew to use code words to pretend he he wasn't. The rise of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh to leadership positions (official and unofficial) guaranteed that the Republicans would continue to play toward the worst elements.

And if you don't think other people already know this, maybe you still have some more rethinking to do.

[noiretextatique]

33. absolutely

there's nothing more insulting to me as a black woman than to hear this crap from rightwingers. clearly, they think we are stupid

[Hutzpa]

46. Thank you. nt

[CJCRANE]

34. Yes, there's still something "off" about his idea...

It still goes the old route of projecting negative perceptions, instead of actually showing respect and offering solutions to the constituency they want to appeal to.

[Hutzpa]

47. ^^^ THIS ^^^

And if you don't think other people already know this, maybe you (Bartlett) still have some more rethinking to do.

He figures using a well respected leftist laureate like Krugman will give him a pass on his BS theory.

Like the DU front page states "make me a sandwich motherfuckers"

[hifiguy]

28. It is shocking when a Repub or ex-Repub publicly stands up

for intellectual honesty and refuses to back down from the truth. Many kudos to you, sir.

[ray of light]

29. Obama is neither Liberal or Republican. He is a pragmatist. He works to get compromise.

I am sure if he had a progressive House and Congress, he'd be much more able to do liberal things. He understands you can't get anything created without both sides working together. I basically laugh when they say Obama is a Republican based upon 2008-2012. HE is not God. HE does not create the laws. Congress does. He signs them into law. It's so stupid to claim that his personal philosophy is republican when he basically has to work with everyone from all sides to represent all of America.

[sendero]

37. And LBJ and FDR ..

.. or George Bush were not gods either, but they managed to get their agenda enacted. Go figure.

[Hydra]

40. He's not a Pragmatist

He really believes the Repubs and Big Business know how to run a country. His approaches to issues have been all about this, even as he claims he'd prefer to do something else.

The first debate of the 2012 election highlighted this when Romney casually stole his favorite middle position and hammered him on decisions made during his term. You'd think the President hadn't been at the center of making all of those decisions and doing what you suggest- figuring out how much of his vision he could get out of congress or his not-inconsiderable executive power. Instead, he looked like he regretted taking any actions that could be considered vaguely "left" that could hurt him at that point.

I guess if there's really "One America" as he suggests, then it's the Corporate States of America.

[sendero]

36. Fantasic article..

.. from someone who gets it.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

38. Has he denounced Ayn Rand? Did I miss something?

[libdem4life]

39. More Proof that the extreme RW is swinging a bit left. Pat Robertson is the CF of that equation.

He admits he "heard God wrong" ... if one does not come from that extreme background, it is impossible to relay the significance of these three words from the Fundamentalist's primary Mouthpiece for decades.

[colsohlibgal]

41. It's Nice When Ex Righties See The Light

Bartlett is totally correct about Obama, he's barely left of the middle and the middle is well right of where it used to be pre Ronnie.

Obama talks pretty left in campaigne mode, but once it's over he hires Wall Street Insider Republicans as his financial team - notice the total lack of perp walks after the massive Wall Street frauds that trashed pensions among other things. Big money talks, the rest of us walk.

[bloomington-lib]

48. kick

[markpkessinger]

53. Fascinating article, BUT...

...Bartlett displays his own special kind of cluelessness when he speaks of how he thought he could peel African Americans and other ethnic minorities away from Democrats by talking about pre-1964 Dixiecrats. Does he really think African Americans are so uniformed that they aren't aware that the old conservative southern Democrats defected, virtually en masse, to the Republican party?

[Skittles]

54. BRUCE NAILS IT!!!!

[reformist2]

60. This guy isn't really even a GOP turncoat... he's just showing how extreme they've become.

Today's Repugs may have their roots in Nixon's "southern stategy" and Reaganism, but neither of those presidents would recognize the freak show the GOP has become.

[Festivito]

62. Slow learners. /nt

[JDPriestly]

64. How Republican is this thinking?

I thought knowing the Democratic Party’s pre-1964 history of racism, which is indisputable, would give Republicans a story to tell when they went before black groups to solicit votes. I thought it would also make Republicans more sympathetic to the problems of the black community, many of which are historical in their origins. Analyses by economists and sociologists show that historical racism still holds back African-Americans even though it has diminished radically since the 1960s.

So I wrote Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. Unfortunately, it was published the day Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses. But I still held out hope that Hillary Clinton, who was pandering to the white working class in unsubtle racial terms, would capture the Democratic nomination. The anger among blacks at having the nomination effectively stolen from Obama would make them highly receptive to GOP outreach, I believed. I even met with John McCain’s staff about this.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

Am I allowed to quote from the original article since it is published in a conservative source?

I'm printing this to show the kind of foolish, crooked, tricky-dick thinking that is the trademark of recent Republican campaigns and how this author seems to also think in that sickeningly critical way.

He wasn't concerned about respecting people of different races. He was just trying to figure out how he could use racial inequality and racial divisions to benefits conservatives.

What a creep. I hope he has changed his social values as well as his party affiliation.

[rudycantfail]

66. Keynes continues to be validated

by economic realities. The biggest threat to Keynesian theory now are so-called stimulus plans, designed by center-right politicians, that are too weak to drive the economy out of the ditch. They are labelled as "stimulus plans" but they predictably, by Krugman and many others, get weak results. They seem tailor made to undermine Keynes.

[amuse bouche]

67. Nice

but still... a day late and a dollar short